ArticlePloS one2026
Variability among large language models in assessing CONSORT compliance of published randomized clinical trials.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeer review processes may inadequately assess compliance with established reporting guidelines such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria. Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate potential for systematic manuscript evaluation; however, how consistently different models assess adherence to CONSORT guidelines in published clinical trials remains unexplored.
methodsTwenty randomized controlled trials published in immunology journals between 2015 and 2016 were identified through PubMed. Three LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Claude Sonnet 4.6) independently assessed compliance across 37 CONSORT 2010 subpoints. The primary endpoint was the difference between models in mean CONSORT compliance score. Secondary endpoints included inter-model agreement and the proportion of articles meeting a 90% compliance threshold. Statistical analysis employed repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05).
resultsMean CONSORT compliance rates were: ChatGPT-4o 80.8% (95% CI 75.8-85.8%), Gemini 2.5 Flash 64.4% (95% CI 58.0-70.8%), and Claude Sonnet 4.6 54.7% (95% CI 48.0-61.3%). Using a 90% compliance threshold as a quality benchmark, ChatGPT-4o identified 25% of papers (5/20) as meeting this standard, while Gemini 2.5 Flash and Claude Sonnet 4.6 each identified none (0/20) as meeting this standard. Repeated-measures ANOVA demonstrated significant differences between models (F(2,38) = 43.01, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.694). All pairwise comparisons were statistically significant (ChatGPT-4o versus Gemini 2.5 Flash and ChatGPT-4o versus Claude Sonnet 4.6, both p < 0.001; Gemini 2.5 Flash versus Claude Sonnet 4.6, p = 0.014).
conclusionsLLMs varied substantially in their assessment of CONSORT compliance in published randomized trials, with a consistent ordering: ChatGPT-4o scored compliance highest, Gemini 2.5 Flash intermediate, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 lowest. Item-level agreement between models was only moderate, with no pairwise weighted kappa reaching the 0.61 substantial-agreement threshold. This inter-model variability indicates the need for standardized evaluation protocols before LLM-assisted manuscript screening is adopted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.